thomashudgins.com

Pages

Sunday, August 6, 2017

An Adventist satire page has a post about a pastor getting fired from a church for making things up with Greek. It could have been funnier I suppose. Next time they should write me and I can draw one up for them. We needed a little more of the story. But isn't it true how some pastors love to tell people about their knowledge of Greek; they love to put those skills on display. When digging a foundation for their sermon, they choose to rest it on nothing less than the Greek text. The problem is this: Few ever really check whether the foundation is really there. "Pastor says it, therefore it must be true." I suppose this is, for me, one of the strongest reasons why every Christian ought to study Greek for his or herself and gain a knowledge of it that allows them to spot "fake Greek." Recently I heard another reference to that agape love that Jesus has for people––that divine love and selfless. I'm surprised we hear references to agape like that today. Every pastor and every teacher of the Scriptures ought to have read Don Carson's Exegetical Fallacies. And if someone isn't set straight on the fallacy of agape love statements we hear in churches, then there's a problem. It's just too basic.

A better rule of thumb is to opt to not use Greek in any way, shape, or form during the act of teaching. Better to just explain the text, folks. That's all we're called to do as teachers. What does the text mean? And we can do that just fine without telling people what the Greek word is.

Jeremy Bouma has a snapshot of Con Campbell's new Greek grammar, co-authored with Richard Gibson, over at the Zondervan Academic blog. You can read about it here. I appreciate the lists. Can you imagine getting something delivered to your house that required assembly and yet there were no step-by-step instructions? Maybe you're like me and an example (or three) immediately comes to mind. Well, you know what I mean. Lists are helpful when you're trying to learn how to do something. We can deviate from those lists as we get more comfortable with what it is we're doing (e.g., word studies or translating a sentence), but in the beginning it really is helpful.

I haven't seen the book yet. I will shortly. A journal has asked me to write a review of it. And so it should be coming in the mail soon. I'm sure I'll have some praise and some hesitation. I always do. The only book we ought to agree with entirely is the Bible. But I think this book is going to have a lot of strengths. And from what I see so far––and hope is the case––it looks like a very practical text.

Friday, July 21, 2017

If you would have asked someone forty years ago to describe the "statistics" class of the future, I'm sure it would have been hard to imagine a world with SAS/STAT software. Most of the statistics profs would have scoffed at the idea of a classroom incorporating technology like that. The purists out there would have ridiculed it as a cheapening of the real thing, a watered down version, a stats class that was not even a stats class. But, my friends, there would have been some other people out there, the ones who could look to the horizon and see beyond, the ones who could imagine a classroom that leveraged what innovation had afforded them in order to make stat courses better for everyone, not just for the Gertrude Cox's of the world. And, as it would happen, these individuals would be the ones who shaped statistics education for the next thirty years (and beyond).

My friend Carl Sanders has written a paper that in my opinion echoes the calls of the 1990s for a "new pedagogy" in the field of statistics. Carl, though, is calling for a new pedagogy when it comes to the teaching of biblical languages. The article is now published in Teaching Theology and Religion 20:3 (July 2017): 216–229. You can find the abstract and other information here.

Should you read it? –Yes. What if you don't have TTR? ––Order it, or request it via inter-library loan. This one is a must read. You might spill your coffee as you disagree vehemently, but read it all the way through. Maybe it's wrong. Maybe there's no evidence to back up a task-based approach to teaching the biblical languages. Maybe. But maybe there's none to back up grammar-translation either. Most of the people I ask who had Greek, even as early as a year ago, can't do a smidgen of what they were told they would be able to do "after this course." It's true: Students own a lot of the responsibility for not getting their Greek, not keeping it all, or altogether losing it in the months and years that follow their final course. But there's a big question that is often never asked: What skills that have a direct impact on ministry are developed and acquired in each language course? Language professors often––so often––tie exegesis to the third or fourth course in a sequence of language courses (e.g., Greek III/IV). Here's the problem though: Most students only take the "required" language courses, if any at all. And if exegetical skills are the focus of those later courses, you're not cultivating skills that make a difference in the lives of most of the students. That's a major problem. And even then, many of the third or fourth semester language courses are just beefed up grammar-translation courses.

Is it time for a rethink? I think so. Carl thinks so. Some others have told us they think so too. But what say you?

Monday, July 17, 2017

Have you been reading Antonio's latest posts over at Across the Atlantic? He discussing his view on Paul and the last days. How would you respond to what Antonio is saying about Paul's view? One of the points he makes is that Jesus and Paul had two different views about the end times. Hmmm. Is that true? How would you respond to that claim? And does it even matter? I think it does. A lot. And I do not think there are two different eschatologies in the New Testament.

Here's the link to Part 3 of Antonio's series. You can find links to the first two at the beginning of that post.

Thursday, July 13, 2017

So I just sent a link to this interview to a friend who is preparing to teach a group of believers about the church. I've watched it at least three times since Henry did the interview. It's 33 minutes and worth every second, trust me. Spend some time today and think about the "marks" of the church. The book Seven Marks of a New Testament Church is available in English here and Spanish here. If you know some people in Latin America, consider getting them a copy. You can't beat the price and Yadín did a phenomenal job on the translation. Here's my "blurb" in case you want to know why I think you should read the book:

"Just when I thought I had read my favorite book by Dave Black, out comes this one! Whether God just saved you or you’ve been walking with Jesus for many years, this book is for you. Jesus says in Matt. 16:18, 'I will build my church.' From Jesus' perspective the church was future, it was his possession, and he was its architect! Today, we are tempted to forget about its inception, to view it as someone else's possession, and to build it with human minds and hands. Second to a wrong view of the gospel, nothing can hurt the Great Commission more than a wrong view of the church. Black's Seven Marks of a New Testament Church is a necessary reminder that we are to 'do' church on God's terms, not our own. I, for one, have greatly benefited from Black's careful study of Acts 2:37–47. Believe me when I say, we can't afford to neglect these eleven verses if we hope to see God turn the world 'upside down' in our day (Acts 17:6)."

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

My friend Carl Sanders forwarded me a link to an interesting article over at the Daily Mail. It discusses the discovery of twenty-five letters written in Greek in the first century. They were found near Hadrian's Wall in Northumberland. You can read more here. Looks like we'll have to wait at least a few months (probably more) before we get more of the content.

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Romans 16:22 is a pretty clear indication that Paul used an amanuensis at least once. But how did he use them? Were they given freedom to write and arrange his letters for maximum rhetorical bang? Or did Paul dictate what he wanted to say word-for-word in such cases? And one final question: How does all of this impact our understanding of inspiration?

"The Library in Alcalá de Henares and Manuscripts for the Polyglot" deals with the famous six-volume Complutensian Polyglot Bible produced by Cardinal Cisneros and a team of philologists at the beginning of the sixteenth century. I've actually translated a very important section of a book dealing with the library in Alcalá de Henares. This is important because almost no one quotes or references the data the authors cite in their book.

"Paul and the Use of Amanuenses" discusses Paul's practice of writing letters. Did he write them himself? Well, certainly not all of them based on the content of certain letters. Did he dictate them word for word or did he allow ghost writing, specifying only what he hoped to address in the letter and leaving it up to his amanuensis to write it all out? I think you'll enjoy this one.

"Προσέρχομαι, Presence/Absence, And Context" deals with that Greek word that can mean "I come to, draw near to." What's interesting though is the word can be used to indicate that a person is present and just comes to the front of a narrative (or group of people) or that a person is absent and shows up. There's nothing earth shattering here, but it is an important observation regarding how this lexeme functions.

"The Change From Saul To Paul" Part 1 and Part 2 is taken from Antonio's book on the apostle Paul. You've probably heard someone discuss Paul's name change before. Antonio will give you way more information than you've read in the past though. Paul didn't just change his name so that he could better relate to the Gentiles. Nope. There's a better answer and one that tells us a lot about how Paul thought about himself and the God who called him to preach the gospel.

Romans 16:22 is a pretty clear indication that Paul used an amanuensis at least once. But how did he use them? Were they given freedom to write and arrange his letters for maximum rhetorical bang? Or did Paul dictate what he wanted to say word-for-word in such cases? And one final question: How does all of this impact our understanding of inspiration? Join the discussion by clicking here.